Taking this.

First, checking your spec... you enabled rpmautospec, but there's no %autochangelog in the spec. It's possible that copr mangled your spec though. I do recommend you disable rpmautospec for now for the sake of the review and enable it later for the sake of ease of reviewing.

Next, a recommendation: Not mandatory, but recommended if you wish to more easily spot soname bumps: do not use a wildcard (*) for the soname version. Though this is a recommendation, not a requirement.

Side note:

'GPL-2.0' found in:
* /home/farchord/Documents/Fedora/reviews/2510630-quic-teec/srpm/quic-teec-1.0.2/.clang-format

But that's not used in the end product so it doesn't need to be added to the spec.

Let me know when you got a de-rpmautospec'd spec file and I'll push this through.

Note the -devel pkg does not install:

hans@t14s:/var/lib/mock/fedora-44-aarch64/result$ sudo rpm -ivh quic-teec-1.0.2-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm quic-teec-devel-1.0.2-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm  
error: Failed dependencies:
	pkgconfig(qcbor) is needed by quic-teec-devel-1.0.2-1.fc44.aarch64

hans@t14s:/var/lib/mock/fedora-44-aarch64/result$ sudo dnf install 'pkgconfig(qcbor)' 
Updating and loading repositories:
Repositories loaded.
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: pkgconfig(qcbor)
You can try to add to command line:
  --skip-unavailable to skip unavailable packages

I think rpmbuild automatically adds the 'pkgconfig(qcbor)' dependency based on a requires in the .pc file in the -devel package, but the actual provided pkgconfig by libcbor-devel is 'pkgconfig(libcbor)'. So I think we need to patch the .pc file and submit a fix for the .pc file upstream .

Hello Steve and Hans

Steve: Agreed .clang-format is a copy of the Linux kernel's file and carries its GPL-2.0 tag, but it's developer tooling only and isn't installed. Verified nothing from it lands in the binary package
Hans: I've fixed the issue and created a PR -> https://github.com/qualcomm/quic-teec/pull/30

SPEC Url: https://aekoroglu.fedorapeople.org/quic-teec.spec
SRPM Url: https://aekoroglu.fedorapeople.org/quic-teec-1.0.2-1.fc45.src.rpm

Steve, if you don't have time to work on this I would be happy to take over the review from you. Let me know if you want me to take over?

(In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #4)
> Steve, if you don't have time to work on this I would be happy to take over
> the review from you. Let me know if you want me to take over?

Sure, go right ahead i was doing this one to help but it might take a bit for me to get to it.

Thank you Steve.

Full review done:

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: ExclusiveArch: %{arm64} is expected for this hw-support pkg
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Approved!

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/quic-teec
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`